Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines obesity classification discrepancies in adults, indicating implications for accurate assessments.
Background Percent body fat (%BF) is a common measurement reported on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to assess for obesity. %BF is calculated as fat mass divided by total body mass, and thereby increases with either higher fat mass or reduced muscle mass. In contrast, fat mass index (FMI; kg/m2) quantifies fat mass independent of muscle mass. It is unknown whether patients classified as obese by %BF have low muscle mass, and whether individuals with sarcopenia are labeled as obese by %BF versus FMI. Methods We utilized whole-body DXA data from 1999-2006 NHANES in adults ≥20 years of age (N = 14,850) to estimate the prevalence obesity by %BF, FMI, BMI, and waist circumference. We compared body composition across definitions and examined obesity prevalence among those with sarcopenia. Results More patients met criteria for obesity when defined by %BF (76.8%) compared to BMI (33.9%), FMI (35.8%), and WC (51%). Participants classified as obese by %BF had lower lean (muscle) mass, FMI, and BMI compared to participants obese by FMI (all p < 0.001). Among patients with sarcopenia, 62.4% were classified as obese by %BF compared with 0.5% if BMI was used to define obesity. Conclusions Patients who are classified as obese by %BF had the lowest muscle mass and fat mass compared to participants who met other definitions of obesity. The majority of patients with sarcopenia are labeled as obese by %BF. We believe these findings support the use of FMI, a measurement not confounded by muscle mass, for research and clinical assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ziolkowski et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: